The Making of Modern Russia Essay Example for Free

The Making of Modern Russia Essay b) How far do you agree that the economic position of the peasantry in Russia was stronger in the period between the Emancipation and the Revolution than it was under Lenin and Stalin? Agricultural policy in Russia throughout Russia between 1856 and 1964 has always been characterised by a hidden agenda. The Tsars used agricultural policy to obstruct a revolution, while Stalin used agricultural policy to facilitate industrialisation. The peasantry were limited in reaping the benefits from agricultural policies introduced by either regime. However, while both governments used agricultural policies to sustain their power, the Communist regime under Lenin and Stalin was significantly more ruthless than the former. The Tsarist regime needed the peasants on side in order to block latent revolutionary threat. Therefore, it can be said the peasants were in a better economic position under the Tsars than the Communist regime. Additionally after the emancipation, the peasantry no longer existed because of egalitarianism. In 1861 Tsar Alexander II introduced the first economic policy intended to benefit the peasantry. The Emancipation Edict was a mechanism implemented to free all serfs, who made up more than one third of the total population. The Emancipation edict abolished all personal serfdom, and the peasants were to receive land from the landlords and pay them for it. This gave the peasantry the opportunity to achieve limited economic success. However in reality, the peasants were effectively transferred from one owner to another. The state advanced the money to the landlords and recovered it from the peasants in 49 annual sums known as redemption payments. That initial stage dragged on for nearly 20 years in some regions. In many areas the peasants had to pay more than the land was worth. While in other areas they were given small plots, and many chose to accept beggarly allotments. The peasants landholdings were controlled by the mir, or village commune. The mir was responsible for redemption payments and periodically redistributed the land to meet the changing needs of the various households. This system meant that peasants could not leave their villages, and actually lost rights to the use of some land. (WHICH?) This policy aimed to circumvent revolution and hence actually worsened the economic plight of the peasantry. The emancipation was a failure in terms of the economic success. What is more, the provisions concerning land redistribution produced the peasant discontent that eventually helped the Russian Revolution to succeed, despite the later land reforms of Stolypin after the 1905 revolution. These plans involved allowing peasants to own their own land, removing the system in which peasants only farmed strips of land and allowing peasants to trade land freely. These proposals would have warranted more economic security for the peasantry if there wasnt a lack of enthusiasm to adopt them. Having enjoyed a sense of collective security at the time, the Bedniaks were unwilling to run the risk of setting up farms individually. For this reason, Stolypins reforms were fruitless. By and large, the same problems created after emancipation was still present in 1914. However, many historians have argued that if given more time Stolypin may have been able to implement them successfully. Overall, the main agricultural policies implemented to improve the economic success of the peasants at the time were aimed at trying to keep the Tsarist regime in power. This is why both the emancipation edict and Stolypins reforms failed. M. Lynch states that in a country as relatively backward as Russia, reforms would take even longer to be effective this refers to Stolypins gamble on the strong. This suggests that Stolypins reforms may have worked if given time, but the peasants were still in a backward agricultural economy and were averse to risk. This is the reason for the failure of both the emancipation and Stolypins reforms. Both policies failed to provide an incentive to the peasantry, to leave what they had and create a richer peasantry would reject any socialist ideals. Instead these policies were aimed at stabilising Tsardom. When the Communist regime seized power in 1917, the peasants encountered the same problems faced in the Tsarist regime. Peasants had not benefited during the Tsarist regime due to the fact that all policies were aimed at maintaining its hold on power. In doing so, some consideration had to be given to the peasants when these policies were implemented. In addition, the Communist regime was different to that of the Tsars; in that it did not depend on the support of the peasants and therefore any policies introduced for agriculture simply relied on the repression of peasants. All policies were aimed at industrialising Russia, and it did not matter if peasants suffered because of this. Any agricultural policy was simply to help feed the towns or to provide grain to export to pay for industrialization. The Communist regime implemented a policy of war communism during the civil war. The sole aim of this policy was to keep the Bolsheviks in power and to win the civil war. As a result, peasants were viewed as disposable. Even during the vast famine of 1922, the Government took all surplus agricultural produce given to the towns to help supply the army with food. The peasants stopped producing more than they needed for themselves. The result was famine aggravated by drought; no measures were taken to help them. In addition, Russia continued to export large amounts of grain to fund the war in spite of the substantial famine in Russia itself. This left many peasants in extremely poor economic positions, definitely in a worse position than during the Tsarist regime. In 1921, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced. It was intended to rectify this position and stabilise the economy. As a result of the NEP, production revived quickly, industrial production reaching the pre-war level by 1926, and although more slowly, agricultural production grew. Moreover, peasants were even allowed to sell some surplus and pay tax; some peasants became rich such as the Kulaks as a result of the removal of state requisitioning. As a result, this policy restored some prosperity and improved the economic position of the peasants by encouraging new small businesses. Experts were brought in to increase production in nationalised industries (coal, iron, steel railways). However, although this policy was aimed at providing more grain to feed the towns, it did improve the economic position of the peasants by giving the people the chance to make money. However it is debateable as to whether it was only intended as a temporary measure to repair a severely damaged economy. There were problems that prevented the peasantry to benefit economically from the policy. The first problem was that the surplus grain produced by peasants couldnt be traded for industrial goods easily as industry did not grow as rapidly as agriculture had. This meant the peasants did not benefit as much as they could have with their increased supply of grain. Furthermore, the high turnover meant the value of grain plummeted between 1922 and 1923. To make matters worse, the lack of industrial goods available at the time meant industrial prices kept rising. The peasantry were forced to grow more grain than before in order to buy the goods they needed. The newly denationalized industry was producing again, but its costs were much higher than pre-war levels and thus the prices of manufactured goods were high. As the marketing of agricultural produce was resumed, the greater supply drove grain prices down. The terms of trade this moved against the countryside. Whereas the average peasant had formerly been able to get a shirt for thirty-odd pounds of rye or the equivalent, by 1923 he needed two hundred and fifty pounds. The result was the scissors crisis so called from a diagram Trotsky used in a speech, which showed the intersection of a falling rural price curve and a rising urban price curve. The curves intersected, said Trotsky in September 1922. The Lag factor undermined the new economic position of the peasants. Moreover, the introduction of higher taxation also further reduced the economic position of the peasants, meaning more of their grain was used to pay taxes rather than for trading. Overall, the economic potential of the NEP was cancelled out by several factors: high taxes, lack of trading opportunities. The economic position of the peasantry had seen some improvement with the abandonment of state requisitioning, but even this development was minor. The peasants were almost in the same economic position as they had been during war communism. The NEP was at least a feasible attempt to improve the state of agriculture, and did give peasants some economic freedom. But, this economic freedom was taken away from the peasantry under Stalin with his policy of collectivisation. This policy forced peasants to live on collective farms, with most the grain being produced being given to towns, over the peasants. This had a severely effect on the peasantry, who started hoarding grain as a reaction against the preferential treatment towards the towns. They refused to produce grain that would not be theirs and successful held the state for ransom. This only dragged the country into a deeper famine. NEP could have helped the peasants economically if it was run properly. This was not the case. Problems such as the machines not being available to cultivate the crops when needed meant more peasants had less grain for themselves. The grain that was produced was not split fairly and left many peasants with insufficient grain to feed their families. NEP also meant the recreation of class distinction, however the policy continued despite its shortcomings until . All the economic freedom achieved since the emancipation were stripped from the peasants, leaving them in a worse position than they were eighty years before. The final problem with collectivisation was Dekulakisation; the class of wealthier independent peasants. In smashing the Kulak class, the peasants were losing the most efficient farmers, thus reducing the amount of grain being produced by the peasants still further. The liquidation of the Kulak class left collectivised farms with the task of improving the peasants economic position. Something it was unable to achieve. Collectivisation undermined any economic freedoms that the peasants had gained. They now had no land, no freedom to trade, and in many cases, not even enough grain to feed their families. Entirely, due to the badly run collectivised farms and the destruction of the class enemy: the kulaks. Overall, agriculture was completely neglected throughout the Tsarist and Communist regimes. Agricultural policies were simply used to either keep the current government in power or to help achieve ideals the regime had, such as industrialisation. In many ways, both regimes were equally incompetent and negligent. Both were authoritarian and dictatorial and all policies passed on agriculture had a vested interest. However, during the Tsarist regime, at least some (albeit not all) peasants had their own land that they could live on. During the communist regime, many peasants were forced into poverty by the policies of war communism and collectivisation. At the end of 1950 peasants did not have their own land, and were working for little reward, as the productivity was worse than in 1917. If the evidence is weighed up on the scales: the peasants economic position stayed much on the same level as before emancipation. However paradoxically, they received more benefits economically by the Tsarist regime than the Communist regime. The Tsarist regime needed the peasants subside revolutionary sentiment and sustain power. Collectivisation under the communist regime destroyed all economic gains the peasants had achieved throughout both regimes. Why was NEP abandoned? http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/Index.html For similarities you could consider some of the following points: 1. the central control by the Tsars and by Stalin 2. the secret police under both regimes 3. terror 4. total control of the government over the economy 5. total control of the government over education 6. the adoration of the leaders by the people, giving them a godlike status 7. Both regimes relied on a large number of supporters in order to carry out the work of the leader. For differences, you might consider some of the following points: 1. different political doctrines 2. the way in which they achieved power 3. attempts by the two last Tsars to give the people some democracy was not matched by Stalin 4. the Tsarist regimes knew that they would have to move on if they were to keep people happy. Stalin was not interested in the peoples happiness. He just wanted the power. 5. Industrialisation 6. Class structure 7. Different types of people in power. Not just the Tsars and Stalin but all the other people that helped maintain the regimes. For each of the points you wish to write about you need to make your comparison and then support it with some factual evidence. . Some historians argue that Stolypin and his wager on the strong was the last chance the Tsar had to help Russia develop into a democratic society, and to keep his throne.

Multiprocessing Essay -- essays research papers

Multiprocessing   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Multiprocessing refers to a computer system’s ability to support more than one process or program at the same time. Multiprocessing operating systems enable several programs to run concurrently. UNIX is one of the most widely used multiprocessing systems, but there are many others, including OS/2 for high-end personal computers and Windows NT for work groups. Multiprocessing systems are much more complicated than single-process systems because the operating system must allocate resources to competing processes in the most efficient manner. (IBM Dictionary of Computing, Tenth Edition, McGraw-Hill, (1994)). Types of Multiprocessing Symmetric multiprocessing refers to the processing of programs by multiple processors that share a common operating system, memory and data path. A single copy of the operating system controls all processors. Symmetric multiprocessing units of this type are also referred to as â€Å"shared everything† systems. These systems usually do not exceed 16 processors. (Image courtesy of Sequent Manufacturing) The most common uses of these types of systems are commercial servers of web applications such used in on line commerce. The advantages of this particular configuration are that they can be easily upgraded by the addition of more processors. These processors are available to execute any of the given processes as soon as the operating system recognizes and configures the new hardware. However, the limitations of such a configuration are that with shared memory, there is a strong emphasis on data manipulation. As each processor competes for a limited amount of shared memory, this limits the speed and up-gradability of such a system. Manufacturers must rely on the development of faster, higher capacity memory to overcome this disadvantage. Currently symmetric multiprocessing computers can address up to 14 gigabytes of physical memory and approximately 2 terabytes of storage. (Sequent Manufacturing Inc., white papers 1998) Parallel Processing Parallel processing is a form of information processing that emphasizes the concurrent manipulation of data elements belonging to one or more process solving a single problem. It is also referred to as a â€Å"shared nothing† system. These systems are composed of many loosely connected nodes or P/M ... ...to produce a result from a device. C.The number of results a device produces over a unit of time. D.The time it takes a device to retrieve the next instruction. E.None of the above 6.Which of the following operating systems does not support multiprocessing? A.Microsoft Windows NT B.UNIX C.OS/2 D.LINUX E.All of the above support multiprocessing. 7.Which of the following applications would benefit most by multiprocessing? A.A large Word document. B.A large Excel spreadsheet. C.A video game D.A large Multi-user Database. E.None of the above. 8.LINUX is an off shoot of which multiprocessing operating system? A.UNIX B.Windows 98 C.OS/2 D.Windows NT E.MS DOS 9.Which Pittsburgh University is currently developing new multiprocessing operating systems? A.University of Pittsburgh. B.Carnegie-Mellon University C.Robert Morris College D.Point Park College E.None of the above 10.Linus Torvalds is: A.The inventor of UNIX operating system B.The chairman of the board of Microsoft Corp. C.The inventor of LINUX operating system D.The guy that cuts Packy’s grass. 1. (C) 2. (A) 3.(A) 4.(A) 5.(C) 6.(E) 7.(D) 8.(A) 9.(B) 10.(C)

Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation

Continuous and comprehensive evaluation Continuous and comprehensive evaluation is an education system newly introduced by Central Board of Secondary Education in India, for classes 9th and 10th. Continuous and comprehensive evaluation has been formulated by Education Minister, Kapil Sibal to decrease the accumulated stress of board exams on the students and to introduce a more uniform and comprehensive pattern in education for the children all over the nation. As a part of this new system, student's marks will be replaced by grades which will be evaluated through a series of other factors along with academics. The aim is to reduce the workload on students and to improve the overall skill and ability of the student by means of evaluation of other activities. Grades are awarded to students based on work experience skills, dexterity, innovation, steadiness, teamwork, public speaking, behaviour, etc. to evaluate and present an overall measure of the student's ability. This is supposed to help those students who are not good in academics but do well in other fields such as arts, humanities, sports, music, athletics, etc. Assessment is done through projects and internal assessments which will last the whole year. However, most students have not liked this particular change and have liked the old system better. The toppers, especially don't like this system as one who gets 92% and one who gets 98% get the same grade. Even parents have complained about this new change and have likened the old system over the new one. it has become a major cause of stress for the youth and is a burden for the students.

We Are Qualified For Our Social Liberties - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1722 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2019/04/15 Category Biology Essay Level High school Tags: Animal Testing Essay Did you like this example? As natives of America we are qualified for our social liberties. They comprise of our straightforward wants for living a happy and secure presence. Creatures yet are not qualified for any rights to guarantee them wellbeing, appropriately wellbeing, and right staying conditions. Creature looking at labs torment and kill innocuous creatures step by step. The research facilities fragrance of synthetic mixes and blanch, and the pens are filthy, and never again legitimately put away. The horrible scents fill their noses and theyre compelled to stroll in their own pee and dung. these creatures are required to experience in these circumstances consistently, this isnt accommodating, and its far a moderate agonizing demise. keeping a honest creature contrary to their will and tormenting them with perilous materials is creature pitilessness and should be illicit: there are green elective ways to deal with creature testing. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "We Are Qualified For Our Social Liberties" essay for you Create order Creature testing is known as the utilization of creatures in analyses and improvement tasks to decide poisonous quality, measurements, and adequacy of test sedates before continuing to human clinical preliminaries. Creature testing is sucha dubious point since it includes utilizing a living life form to test distinctive medications and synthetics and can conceivably have a lethal result. The measure of pressure put onto the creature all through the testing is undesirable and excruciating for the creature. It is much the same as a creature being mercilessly beaten by their proprietor; lamentably the medications and other terrible substances constrained onto the creature have long haul impacts and influence the creature to endure it to see the consequences of the test. This is so coldhearted and off-base. Creatures ought not need to endure this unbelievable torment. There are distinctive explanations behind creature testing, the primary ones being for restorative purposes, for example, cosmetics brands and plastic medical procedure strategies like Botox. Researchers utilize the creatures to inquire about various medications and synthetic concoctions and basically are searching for unusual responses from them. Being a female l buy diverse corrective items that I use on an everyday premise. Beauty care products are articles proposed to be connected to the human body for purging, decorating, advancing allure, or changing the appearance without influencing the bodysstructure or capacities. Probably the most normally realized brands test their items on creatures. Organizations like Johnson and Johnson, Avon, Kleenex, Vaseline, Dove, Giorgio Armani, Maybelline, and incalculable more organizations their items on creatures. Researchers direct skin bothering tests that rub synthetic concoctions onto shaved skin or drop the synthetic compounds at rabbit with no torment prescription. They are trying items with the synthetics that could conceivably cause the 2 disturbance, for example, cosmetics remover, eye shadow, mascara, and things connected to the eye or eyelid. This test is clearly insensitive and excruciating for the rabbits, yet there are options in contrast to this test are others conscious and should be possible instead of it. Rather than putting the synthetic compounds onto the rabbits, producers can drop the synthetic substances onto gave human corneas (Cosmetics and Household). Ladies wear cosmetics and buy items that are connected consistently to the face and eyes. With those items I am believing that they will upgrade my physical highlights decidedly, however I would not need those items to be tried in such a coldblooded and painful way. Ailments are another explanation behind testing on creatures. Malignant growth, Down disorder, heart issues, diabetes, and others are a portion of the fundamental infections researchers are attempting to discover solutions for. The opposite side to creature testing can possibly spare lives by discovering remedies for these perilous ailments. This is the reason a few sections of creature testing are so crucial to our wellbeing frameworks and patients. Numerous colleges utilize creatures to test in various sorts of preparing programs. At the University of Michigan nursing understudies utilized a feline to work on putting a cylinder into its windpipe. The objective of the methodology was for medical attendants chipping away at survival flights to have the capacity to play out the system to patients in basic condition. The feline was later received into a family and was not hurt by any means. In spite of the fact that this specific technique appears to be innocuous to the feline and sounds effortless crusades kept on challenging utilizing live creatures and PETA kept on squeezing the subject. They needed them to supplant utilizing live creatures with test systems which for all intents and purposes does likewise . Tests like this that are done appear to be so minuet contrasted with others that are utilized for discovering fixes. Creature testing for humarn wellbeing has been said to be perilous, temperamental, and costly. Despite what might be expected there have been situations where creature testing for therapeutic reasons has in reality discovered immunizations and fixes. From 1940 to 1960 polio was a standout amongst the most mainstream and understood illnesses. Because of the examination led on creatures polio has been dispensed with as an outstanding infection on account of an immunization that nearly everybody has gotten (Use of Animals). Today kids get a lifetime immunization for polio and are additionally vaccinated against typhus, challenging hack, and lockjaw. I can see where the debate comes in. I certainly think discovering remedies for every one of these maladies are something that should be done, and yet creatures ought to have rights to their bodies. Creatures that are constrained into these offices to be tried on originate from every single distinctive piece of the world. Extraordinarily reproduced rodents and mice are the warm blooded animal in most therapeutic research (What Types of Animals. Different well evolved creatures ordinarily found in research are guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, and homestead creatures, for example, pigs and sheep (What Types of Animals). At times it has been reputed that a portion of the creatures are exceptionally reared for specific kinds of testing. This has brought up a considerable measure of issues with respect to how precise the tests really are. Diverse creatures are utilized for specific tests. In past investigations it was demonstrated that specific creatures respond contrastingly to similar tests. This is the reason such huge numbers of various breeds and sorts of creatures are influenced by this; it includes such a large number of various supplies and hardware which thusly can turn out to be expensive. Creature testing has been known to be an exorbitant and an unscrupulous method for finding precise fixes. A few tests can take months or even a long time to direct and examine. This can bring about burning through many thousands, here and there even a great many dollars on one test (Costs of Animal). The wastefulness and over the top expenses related with creature testing makes it unimaginable for controllers to sufficiently assess the potential impacts of in excess of 100,000 synthetic substances around the world (Costs of Animal).The measure of time expected to lead one straightforward test is excessively extraordinary. The creature is languishing over months to years, for one outcome that isnt ensured. The measure of cash spent on one test isnt justified, despite any potential benefits, when the outcomes are not constantly exact Elective testing can spare numerous creature lives; they additionally are more affordable and set aside less opportunity to finish. The non-creature strategies are progressively successful and above all, increasingly moral. Organizations should utilize modern PC innovation for testing and medication improvement. Innovation has turned into the most imperative thing in the public eye; it gives researchers the instruments to expand human abilities, so for what reason are organizations declining to utilize the innovation that is exhibited in the public eye? These business rehearses on tormenting creatures are against business morals. Populace contemplates have indicated what number of irresistible ailments are caused and furthermore what number of can be anticipated. Truth be told, the National Insitutes of Health revealed that in excess of 80 HIV/AIDS antibodies that have passed creature testing have flopped in clinical preliminaries (Alternatives: Testing without Torture). Non-creature tests are another incredible option. Non-creature tests incorporate an embryonic undifferentiated organism test, 3T3 impartial red take-up photograph poisonous quality tests and human skin extra from surgeries (Alternatives: Testing without Torture). There are such a large number of options in contrast to creature testing that ought to be used as opposed to utilizing live creatures. Then again creature testing has added to finding a wide range of fixes and medications for various ailments. All things considered in case youre adored one has an infection and the best way to locate a compelling fix is to test it on a creature, at that point you would need it done. Critical assumes an enormous job in why such a significant number of individuals bolster creature testing. Creatures are the best thing to test on in light of the fact that they share indistinguishable qualities from people. Chimpanzees share 99 % of their DNA with people , and mice are 98 % hereditarily like people (Animal Testing-ProCon). Offering DNA to a creature has such a significant number of constructive outcomes; the likeliness of finding a fix from testing on one of these creatures could spare such a large number of lives. Laws have managed creature testing to keep the savage and unbearable acts from occurring (Animal Testing-ProCon). There are numerous positive sides to creature testing that could conceivably profit our wellbeing frameworks and patients. Creature Cruelty is unlawful in many states in the U.S. How is tormenting creatures, jabbing them with needles, rubbing hurtful synthetic concoctions onto their bodies and at them legitimate? It is characterized as a similar thing. Holding a blameless creature without wanting to and tormenting them with hurtful substances is creature brutality and ought to be illicit. There are sure options in contrast to discovering fixes and medicines. In spite of the fact that there are a few positives, the measure of cash, time, and creature remorselessness isnt justified, despite any potential benefits, considering the outcomes are not constantly precise. The measures of pressure they are placed through in these labs are sufficient to execute them without the medications. The misery and torment of these guiltless creatures are not worth ensuring our mascara doesnt make our eyes puffy, or how high of a measurements is protected without overdosing. Finding the options could make a huge difference. All through this exploration I have discovered that creature testing is a pitiless and savage act